HENRY DUNANT, 2019: MAP/OUTLINE FOR THE ISSUES

I. War Crime under article 8 (2)(b)(ii) for War crime of intentionally directing
attacks against the civilian objects1:

1. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international
armed conflict:

Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Cases No. IT-96-23-A and IT-96-23/1-

A, Judgement (AC), 12 June 2002 :

Appeal under Article 32 of the Geneva convention III for POW on the ground that there existed no
armed conflict.

55. There are two general conditions for the applicability of Article 3 of the Statute: first, there must
be an armed conflict; second, the acts of the accused must be closely related to the armed conflict.

56. An “armed conflict” is said to exist “whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or
protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups or
between such groups within a State”.3

“59. In determining whether or not the act in question is sufficiently related to the armed conflict, the
Trial Chamber may take into account, inter alia, the following factors: the fact that the perpetrator is
a combatant; the fact that the victim is a non-combatant; the fact that the victim is a member of the
opposing party; the fact that the act may be said to serve the ultimate goal of a military campaign;
and the fact that the crime is committed as part of or in the context of the perpetrator’s official
duties.”

“65.. the laws of war are limited to those acts which could only be committed in actual combat.
Instead, it is sufficient for an act to be shown to have been closely related to the armed conflict..”

“66. Four conditions must be fulfilled before an offence may be prosecuted under Article 3 of the
Statute:4 (i) the violation must constitute an infringement of a rule of international humanitarian law;
(ii) the rule must be customary in nature or, if it belongs to treaty law, the required conditions must

1
intentionally directing attack against nuclear energy plants of Rokumba
2
ART. 3. — In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of
the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions: 1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid
down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in
all circumstances be treated humanely without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith,
sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited
at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: a) violence to life and
person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b) taking of hostages; c)
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; d) the passing of sentences
and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court
affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 2) The wounded
and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee
of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further
endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present
Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the
conflict.
3
Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para 70.
4
Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para 94 and Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para 20
 HENRY DUNANT, 2019: MAP/OUTLINE FOR THE ISSUES

be met; (iii) the violation must be serious, that is to say, it must constitute a breach of a rule protecting
important values, and the breach must involve grave consequences for the victim; and (iv) the
violation of the rule must entail, under customary or conventional law, the individual criminal
responsibility of the person breaching the rule”

2. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence
of an armed conflict:

3. The perpetrator directed an attack:

4. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is objects which are not military
objectives:

5. [Particular mental element for Element 4]The perpetrator intended such civilian
objects to be the object of the attack:

6.a [Mental element for Element 3] [Conduct of directing an attack:] The perpetrator
meant to direct an attack:

II. War Crimes under article 8(2)(b)(iv) for intentionally launching an attack
against the nuclear energy plants of Rokumba,with the knowledge and
intentention of causing incidental loss of life and injury to civilians and
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment that is
excessive to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated: